Banerjee, J. - (1.) This is an appeal against an order passed by the learned trial Judge, dated December 29, 1992. The said order was stated to have been passed by consent of parties.
(2.) When admittedly no copy of the writ application was served upon the respondents Nos. 2 to 13 it appears that the writ application was disposed of alleging by consent of parties on the very date the writ application was moved. It also appears that one Mr. Arabinda Roy, learned Advocate appeared for the State, but from the records of the Court below there is no such vokalatnama or power filed by the State-respondents authorising said Mr. Arabinda Roy to appear before the Court for the State.
(3.) Before us the learned Advocate for the State submitted that the Education Secretary and/or any other officer of the State who are the parties in the writ application were not aware of such consent being given by the said Mr. Arabinda Roy, learned Advocate who appeared for the State before the trial Court without any authority. On the last occasion Mr. Roy appeared before us and could not explain how and under what circumstances he had given consent when he was not authorised and/or competence on behalf of the State to give such consent.;